Whatever you think of the antics of Harry, or his parentage, there seems to be an assumption that "we" (if UK taxpayers) are funding his lifestyle.

In fact, the only members of the royal family to get direct state (ie taxpayer) funding are the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, through the Civil List. The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family (but NOT the Prince of Wales or his family) are funded from a parliamentary annuity which is fully refunded by the Queen to the treasury.

The Queen claims this amount as a deduction against her gross income from personal investments and the net amount is subject to normal income tax. No different from most other people who claim expenses against taxable income.

Charles and his family's funding comes through the profits of the Duchy of Cornwall, which is a private business. In the same way as many other "family businesses" this is run as a Trust, with the current beneficiary (Charles) having access to the profits, but not the capital. Assets can only be acquired or disposed of via the trustees (Charles being only one of several). Harry's living expenses over and above his pay as a military officer are met by Charles from his DoC income.

The DoC income is by statute tax-exempt, but for many years Charles has voluntarily paid income tax on the profits he takes as income.

You could argue that the DoC benefits unfairly from its tax-exempt status which means that it has more funds to re-invest than a normal private corporation would, and that therefore Charles is able to take out more profit as (taxed) income than he would as the beneficiary of a normal Trust business, I suppose. But the point is that Harry doesn't, as many people suppose, just get a big dollop of taxpayers' cash funnelled into his account every year (other than his military salary).